Standard:

The county or city should award contracts for public defense services only after determining that the attorney or firm chosen can meet accepted professional standards. Under no circumstances should a contract be awarded on the basis of cost alone. Attorneys or firms bidding for contracts must demonstrate their ability to meet these standards.

Contracts should only be awarded to a) attorneys who have at least one year's criminal trial experience in the jurisdiction covered by the contract (i.e., City and District Courts, Superior Court or Juvenile Court), or b) to a firm where at least one attorney has one year's trial experience.

City attorneys, county prosecutors, and law enforcement officers should not select the attorneys who will provide indigent defense services.

Related Standards:

National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Guidelines for Negotiating and Awarding Indigent Legal Defense Contracts, 1984, Standard IV-3.

King County Bar Association Indigent Defense Services Task Force, Guidelines for Accreditation of Defender Agencies, 1982, Statement of Purpose.

Commentary:

Currently in Washington State, some counties award contracts for public defense on the basis of competitive bidding, without consideration of the quality of representation that will be provided by the contracting attorney or firm. Contracts which do not address the issues raised in these standards -- reasonable caseloads, adequate support staff and minimum experience levels, to name just three -- cannot be expected to deliver the effective representation mandated by the state and federal constitutions.

Government has a responsibility to contain costs for public defense programs, but cost alone is no guarantee of efficiency. Poorly organized, understaffed, short-term defender programs may be more costly in the long run and may open counties to lawsuits for their failure to ensure effective representation of indigent accused citizens. By the same token, adopting these standards without providing the funds necessary to implement them only defeats their purpose. Our legal system is based on the premise that justice will emerge from the clash between equal adversaries, but this ideal is little more than a pretense if one of the adversaries is denied all but the most meager resources. The vigorous representation to which all accused citizens are entitled simply cannot be purchased at a discount.

Inexperienced attorneys with no office overhead or very young attorneys with no family obligations may indeed be able to submit lower bids than their more experienced colleagues, but if the guarantee of effective counsel is to have any meaning, attorneys receiving contracts for public defense must have adequate experience. Although the minimum experience standards here, by themselves, cannot guarantee that the defendant will be adequately represented, they provide certain assurances that the counsel has developed fundamental abilities and knowledge as well as advocacy skills which will enable him or her to conduct the defense in a competent manner.